Legal Hysteria: How Reactive Common Law Drives the Anglosphere’s Transsexual Obsession

Where and how did this madness originate?

Part of the pleasure of running this little blog is seeing different voices adding to the Anglobitch Thesis in novel and enriching ways. For example, I did not know that Canada (and especially Toronto) was a seething hotbed of feminist misandry; yet it clearly is. Similarly, I did not know that US army personnel were cucked left, right and centre by hyper-hypergamous wives until John Smith informed us of the fact. Nor did I know that the distinctive ‘common law’ that defines the Anglosphere was so instrumental in imposing and maintaining its institutional misandry until a former corrections officer and a distinguished law professor described the problematic legal issues in early 2018.

In broad and simple terms, these commentators claimed that the common law (which defines the Anglosphere) is highly reactive and malleable in relation to social trends and circumstances. This frequently results in legislation being created ‘on the hoof’ in response to media headlines and pressure group activity, without any proper consideration of the wider social or practical implications. By contrast, non-Anglo civil law changes much more slowly and only after deep consideration of all the adjoining implications, producing a generally more rational and stable society with far healthier gender-relations. Writing on this blog in 2018, a distinguished law professor stressed the role of Anglo-American Common Law in shaping an openly misandrist legal system:

A straying or dissatisfied wife outside the Anglo world will possibly sleep with the muscleman washing her car at times, take on a secret identity or even try an open relationship or swinging. (This is reasonably common in Europe and some portions of South America to ease relationship tension, as they are less puritanic in culture and seem able to grasp and hold to a bigger picture.) But the part that matters, is that the marriage will stay intact despite the straying, because the woman, the lawyers and the courts have no profit incentive to encourage it. And if it does happen, she will still need to take responsibility and become an earner, which fortunately, those societies also provide an assist for, in the interest of making sure everyone comes out OK. Custody, for the most part, stays a shared proposition. So whether the husband is “too perfect” (as my son supposedly was) or “far too imperfect” (which men in particular are stigmatized as in Anglo societies), divorce outside of the Anglo world happens less often and is much more humane and restrained. Particularly so in Europe (excluding Britain) and Central and South American countries that have largely been shaped by French, Spanish, Portuguese, German and Italian civil law customs and culture. 

https://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com/2018/04/disillusioned-law-professor-enlightens.html

Beyond the residual puritanism, profit-driven courts and reflexive misandry so ably outlined here, Anglo-American legal culture itself now takes a direct role in actively promoting anti-male agendas. According to the professor, legalistic scholarship has hijacked modern Anglo common law to make it infinitely more reactive to external ‘trends’ (shorthand for academic feminism and its affiliated tentacles in politics and the media):

Any L1 student starting up at a law school learns early about the principle of stare decisis, Latin for "let the decision stand", and thus some of my students have been confused by the very accurate points you and your contributors have been making even before my elaboration above. How can judges in the United States, Canada, Britain and other nations classed as "Anglo" have so much power to make arbitrary decisions, or incorporate radical Anglo-American feminist theories (which are indeed thoroughly misandrist by contrast to the rest of the West), when stare decisis supposedly requires them to follow precedent? Doesn't stare decisis mean they should follow older and long-established customs, including prior judges’ rulings, that are less misandrist?

The answer is no, and Mr. Kshatriya and his contributors are indeed right that judges in divorce courts have rather excessive powers particularly in the realms of monetary imputation and purview of a spouse's finances, and that alimony and child support payments can and regularly are harshly assessed. The answer to this confusion is that the common law since the 20th century has been quite different to what it was before. Most of you (referring to my law school students) have, or soon will encounter the treatises of critical 20th-c jurists such as Frankfurter, Holmes, Brandeis, Dworkin, Fuller, Wechsler and Bickel. In a gradual process of great significance, these legal scholars (several of them Supreme Court justices) re-interpreted the very concept of common law, to make it more flexible and responsive to modern scholarship. Since then, stare decisis and precedent don't mean what they did in the 18th or 19th centuries. Although prior case law remains greatly important in guiding future decisions, the evolution of these scholars' ideas in practice has meant that judges today have a lot of latitude in setting precedent based on prevailing social theories. Their ideas became so influential that they've now come to dominate the concept of common law across the English-speaking world, not just in the United States.

http://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com/2018/04/disillusioned-law-professor-enlightens_20.html

And now we come to the crux of the matter. Since Anglo-American judges now have ‘great latitude’ in setting legal precedents, vocal yet idiomatic academic pressure-groups have begun to exert massive legal influence out of all proportion to their actual numbers in society. Predictably, these academic pressure groups are invariably misandrist, puritanical and feminist in nature:

Unfortunately, once the common law's previous restraints had been cut-- restraints which predate the US Constitution itself, and based on custom instead of statute-- the dangerous perversions of the Frankfurt-School (cultural marxism and ideas of "political correctness" on university campuses) and in particular, the harshly adversarial ideas of 3rd wave feminism were able to exert themselves through this "new form of common law". And it has become a horribly destructive force in the family courts of the English-speaking world. In effect, "precedent" can be almost arbitrarily set by family court judges on the basis of what are considered to be "commonly agreed upon principles" in legal elite professional circles but which, in reality, are often little more than radical feminist theories (the Anglo-Saxon versions of them) that have been arbitrarily lent prestige by their appearance in academic journals. Moreover, since so much of academia in the USA, Canada and Britain (mainland Europe and Latin America have a different university structure) has indeed been taken over by such 3rd wave feminist and cultural marxist radicals who are on the payroll as serious "scholars", result is that common law precedent in Anglo-American courts, which affects all of us, is in effect being "set by precedents" derived from the most radical, misandrist theories of these sorts of feminist academic journals. 

http://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com/2018/04/disillusioned-law-professor-enlightens_20.html

Although the professor's superb critique is largely directed at the divorce courts, I believe that the Anglosphere's malleable common law also underpins more recent attempts to redefine gender-relations across the English-speaking world. And nowhere is this influence more obvious than in the sudden explosion of 'trans rights' over the past five years or so.

In my humble opinion, this bizarre programme bears all the hallmarks of the professor’s brilliant analysis: swiftly and arbitrarily embedded in Anglo-American law without democratic consultation; driven by discredited Marxist ideology rather than common sense; and applied without proper consultation from medical professionals and other relevant experts.

Send in the Clowns...

While retaining their own strong and stable families, the Anglo-American establishment has imposed clown world on their mainstream populations via a flurry of common law edicts backed by a pliant mass media and an eccentric political class. Thus women can molest five year old boys in Canadian classrooms with complete impunity; all employers must make provision for  their (largely imaginary) trans employees; children of five are encouraged to consider gender reassignment, as if they were mentally equipped to make such decisions; a trans 'spokesperson' has to be consulted on every issue under the sun, from aardvarks to zebras; and anyone who questions this insanity is subjected to a reflexive witch-hunt in both social and mainstream media. 

While most people seem to think these sudden changes came ‘out of nowhere’, this deluge has its true origins in Anglo-American Common Law and its infinite capacity to instantly promote and enforce societal change without reference to democratic consultation processes. While Anglo puritanism perverts human sexuality by its very nature, Anglo common law is the legal catalyst that transmits this perversion to every corner of the Anglosphere. 

Merry Christmas to everyone, anyway. Let's hope 2022 brings more joy than the past two years of pandemic misery.